Bug 1179560
Summary: | sanlock directio test file (__DIRECT_IO_TEST__) is triggering self heal | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Red Hat Storage] Red Hat Gluster Storage | Reporter: | Paul Cuzner <pcuzner> |
Component: | replicate | Assignee: | Pranith Kumar K <pkarampu> |
Status: | CLOSED CURRENTRELEASE | QA Contact: | SATHEESARAN <sasundar> |
Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
Priority: | low | ||
Version: | rhgs-3.0 | CC: | amukherj, knarra, nlevinki, olim, pcuzner, pkarampu, ravishankar, rhs-bugs, sabose, sasundar, scotth, storage-qa-internal, vbellur |
Target Milestone: | --- | Keywords: | ZStream |
Target Release: | --- | ||
Hardware: | x86_64 | ||
OS: | Linux | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |
Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
Last Closed: | 2017-08-28 15:21:28 UTC | Type: | Bug |
Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
Embargoed: | |||
Bug Depends On: | |||
Bug Blocks: | 1177771 |
Description
Paul Cuzner
2015-01-07 05:49:14 UTC
Sas, do you see this with replica 3 volume and with sharding turned on? I can confirm I see the same thing in a distribute replicated volume- gluster vol info gv0 Volume Name: gv0 Type: Distributed-Replicate Volume ID: 08773fa0-d57d-4b0a-a517-eaba19e7d58c Status: Started Number of Bricks: 2 x 2 = 4 Transport-type: tcp Bricks: Brick1: 172.16.17.1:/gluster/brick1/gv0 Brick2: 172.16.17.2:/gluster/brick1/gv0 Brick3: 172.16.17.3:/gluster/brick1/gv0 Brick4: 172.16.17.4:/gluster/brick1/gv0 Options Reconfigured: performance.read-ahead: off performance.stat-prefetch: off cluster.eager-lock: enable network.remote-dio: enable cluster.quorum-type: auto cluster.server-quorum-type: server storage.owner-gid: 36 storage.owner-uid: 36 performance.readdir-ahead: on gluster volume heal gv0 info Brick 172.16.17.1:/gluster/brick1/gv0 /__DIRECT_IO_TEST__ Number of entries: 1 Brick 172.16.17.2:/gluster/brick1/gv0 /__DIRECT_IO_TEST__ Number of entries: 1 Brick 172.16.17.3:/gluster/brick1/gv0 Number of entries: 0 Brick 172.16.17.4:/gluster/brick1/gv0 Number of entries: 0 Slightly more updated versions however- RHEV-H - 7.1 - 20150603.0.el7ev , 7.2 sees it and wants to mark the array as inoperable, I'm not sure it's actually having the issue tho as I have 7.1 hosts in service and all the 7.2 hosts in MTX due to this. Gluster server version 3.7.12 RHEV-M - 3.5.8-0.1 Sas, Is this issue still re-creatable? We are doing the planning for 3.3.0. Let us know your inputs. (In reply to Pranith Kumar K from comment #8) > Sas, > Is this issue still re-creatable? We are doing the planning for 3.3.0. > Let us know your inputs. I am not seeing this issue with Gluster 3.8.4 and oVirt 4.1. But I remember Kasturi reporting such an issue with Arbiter volume. Let me redo the test with Arbiter and raise the bug accordingly, if the issue is seen. (In reply to Scott Harvanek from comment #6) > Slightly more updated versions however- > > RHEV-H - 7.1 - 20150603.0.el7ev , 7.2 sees it and wants to mark the array as > inoperable, I'm not sure it's actually having the issue tho as I have 7.1 > hosts in service and all the 7.2 hosts in MTX due to this. > > Gluster server version 3.7.12 > > RHEV-M - 3.5.8-0.1 Scott, Kindly check if you are seeing this issue with oVirt 4.1 and Gluster 3.8 My issue was related to the arrangement of my Distributed-Replicate volume as being unsupported, I moved away from 2x2 and haven't had an issue since. (In reply to Scott Harvanek from comment #11) > My issue was related to the arrangement of my Distributed-Replicate volume > as being unsupported, I moved away from 2x2 and haven't had an issue since. Thanks Scott. Nice to hear that. Its not that distributed-replicate is not supported, but replica 2 is prone to have split-brain issues. Its the replica 3 flavor that provides you better consistency and availability ( to certain extent ) I think we can close this based on Comment 11 and comment 9? (In reply to Sahina Bose from comment #14) > I think we can close this based on Comment 11 and comment 9? Yes, that makes sense. I am closing this bug as CLOSED CURRENTRELEASE, as this issue was not reproducible with RHGS 3.2.0 |